Karnataka High Court
Sri John Bisser Albert vs Sri G Lourduswamy on 18 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15221
CRL.RP No. 341 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 341 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SRI JOHN BISSER ALBERT
S/O ANTHONY J
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NO.122, 5TH CROSS
OPP. GBJ PARK
HAL QUARTERS
MARATHAHALLI POST
BENGALURU - 37
AND ALSO AT NO.26
ED AIR FORCE TECHNICAL AREA
HAL, BENGALURU
SY.NO.IPA NO.42282
AC COURT SECTION
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by D (BY SRI. SHARANESHA S.V., ADVOCATE - ABSENT)
HEMA
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
AND:
SRI G. LOURDUSWAMY
S/O GNANAPRAKASH
AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO .446, 1ST MAIN
NEW BINNY LAYOUT
BINNY PET
BENGALURU - 560023
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VENKATRAM, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15221
CRL.RP No. 341 of 2020
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PEITTION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-21)
MAYO HALL UNIT, AT BENGALURU IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO.25117/2018 DATED 23.01.2020 WHICH WAS PASSED BY
CONFIRMING THE CONVICTION ORDER PASSED BY THE LVII
ACMM, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.55337/2015
DATED 08.06.2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE
COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision petition is filed by the accused/appellant,
who has been convicted by LVII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (hereinafter for short
referred to as 'trial Court') in C.C.NO.55337/2015 for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (for short 'N.I. Act'); which was challenged
by the petitioner before IV Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-21)(hereinafter for
short referred to as 'appellate Court). The appellate Court in
Crl.A.No.25117/2018 dismissed the appeal by impugned
judgment dated 23.01.2020 and same is challenged in the
present revision petition, under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
NC: 2024:KHC:15221
2. I refer the parties as per their rank before the
trial Court.
3. It is the case of the complainant that in the 2nd
week of August, 2014, the accused availed hand loan of
Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant for his urgent business
needs, agreeing to repay the same within a period of three
months. In discharge of the said amount, the accused had
issued cheque bearing NO.026092 dated 17.11.2014 for a
sum of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Indiranagar
Branch. The complainant had presented the said cheque for
collection through his banker. The said cheque was
dishonored on 03.12.2014 with a shara 'Accounts Closed'.
The complainant had issued notice as provided under Section
138 of the N.I. Act, read with Section 142 of N.I. Act, calling
upon the petitioner to pay the amount of cheque. The said
notice was sent to the residential address of accused was
returned with postal endorsement 'addressee left'.
Thereafter, within the prescribed time, the complainant had
presented the complaint before the trial Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:15221
4. It is further case of complainant the trial Court
took cognizance of the case and recorded the sworn
statement of the complainant. On the basis of the sworn
statement as well as the documents relied by the
complainant, the trial Court issued summons to the accused.
The accused had appeared before the trial Court and pleaded
not guilty. To prove his case, the complainant got examined
himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9.
5. The learned trial Judge examined the accused
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and his answers were recorded.
The accused in support of his defense, examined himself as
DW1 and got marked Ex.D1.
6. After hearing both the parties and appreciating
the evidence available on record, the trial Court held that
accused had committed an offence punishable under Section
138 of N.I. Act, acordingly, convicted him for the said
offence and imposed the sentence by its order dated
08.06.2018.
NC: 2024:KHC:15221
7. The said judgment was challenged by accused in
Crl.A.No.25117/2018 before the appellate Court. The
appellate Court heard learned advocates appearing for both
the parties and re-appreciated the evidence available on
record. By impugned judgment dated 23.01.2020 the
Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court
and dismissed the appeal. However, the punishment
imposed by the Trial Court is modified. The same is
challenged in the present revision petition.
8. I have perused materials available before the
Court.
9. It is trite law that in the revision petition filed
under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. there is no need of re-
appreciating of the evidence. The revisional Court has to
consider whether there is any illegality in the orders passed
by the Courts below. Looking to the grounds of revision
petition, most of the grounds are pertains to the facts of the
case. The said grounds are already addressed by trial Court
as well as appellate Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:15221
10. The revision petitioner pleaded ignorance about
the complainant in his evidence. However, his evidence was
recorded in C.C.No.55337/2015 that is produced by the
complainant at Ex.P.8. In the cross-examination DW-1
admitted that he had obtained loan of Rs.1,00,000/-from the
complainant of this case. Considering the evidence of
revision petitioner in C.C.No.55337/2015, the trial Court as
well as first appellate Court held that the complainant was
able to prove obtaining of the loan by accused.
11. The complainant had sent notice to the last
known address of the accused. It appears that accused had
changed his house without any intimation to the
complainant. The contention of accused that notice was not
duly served on him was not accepted by both the Courts
below and the trial Court and first appellate Court held that
service of notice was proper. There are no reasons to
interfere with the said findings of the Courts below. There
are no sufficient materials to admit the revision petition for
reconsideration of the materials available on record.
NC: 2024:KHC:15221
Revision is devoid of merits. Accordingly, I pass the
following:
ORDER
i. Revision petition filed under Section 397 of IPC is
dismissed.
ii. Registry is directed to send copy of this order to
the trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AG
